How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[SSDD]

Very sad abu fack that you are reduced to doing nothing more than going about posting funny when you should be posting evidence to shut me the f*ck up if you have it...clearly you don't...so you go about laughing like a monkey in a tree as if that were rational behavior...you have my pity to have been reduced to a state of such impotence..

 

[SSDD]

abu afak , so you got nothing eh? yep, figured as such.

He has the "funny" button and nothing else...how much more impotent could he possibly get? This is what hitting the "funny" button when you have no actual argument amounts to...

 

[abu afak]

Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..

What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...

There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.
One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.

Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.

Also you stupid idiot, local effects like trees in the arctic - whatever sub or micro climate/region that might be, is NOT "Global" Warming. Doh!
Splash #8426

Your post barrage/burial/Bully attempt failed.
You have No brain, No Info, so tried brawn/your usual high frequency Idiocy.
`

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...there is only what passes for evidence in the minds of people who have been completely bamboozled...you show evidence that glaciers have melted back and then simply assume that mankind is to blame..you show evidence that sea level has risen and then simply assume that we are to blame..you show evidence of some warming and then simply assume that mankind is to blame...and on and on...evidence of climate change which no one is disputing since the climate is always changing..,and tacked on to that evidence, an assumption that we are causing the change..

What I want to see is actual evidence that we are causing the change...or evidence that the present climate is outside the limits of natural variability...that sort of evidence has never been posted because that sort of evidence simply does not exist...

There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.
One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.

Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.

Also you stupid idiot, local effects like trees in the arctic - whatever sub or micro climate/region that might be, is NOT "Global" Warming. Doh!
Splash #8426

Your post barrage/burial/Bully attempt failed.
You have No brain, No Info, so tried brawn/your usual high frequency Idiocy.
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia

What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.

Now watch ABU flail all over the place........

 

[abu afak]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia

What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.

Now watch ABU flail all over the place........

Oh look!
The "inappropriate Fallacy" Fallacy by junior chart dumper INSTEAD of being able to to rebut a single premise I put forward in my last, OR the many cited by the OP links.

It's no wonder he has Ducked on this Killer thread (and refutal of his whole existence) until now! Happened about a year+ ago too. He ran away/ignored.
``

 

[Sunsettommy]

I looked through them all, and there is nothing there that could be construed in any way to be observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....as with all warmest propaganda, there are some observations, and great big honking, handwaving hysterical assumptions hung on those observations...nothing like actual evidence to support the claims......you have to be willing to simply believe...

Of course if you believe there is observed, measured evidence there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means cut and paste it here, or point it out and I will be happy to go look.

Abu, has no idea about the concept of the NULL hypothesis, (probably never heard of it) which has not been shown to be vitiated by the slow warming trend rate. from Investopedia

What Is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables or that a single variable is no different than its mean. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

The difference between man and nature caused changes are currently insignificant, that is the reality warmists fails to understand. The AGW "hypothesis" fails to show that it is mankind who is driving climate change.

Now watch ABU flail all over the place........

Oh look!
The "inappropriate Fallacy" Fallacy by junior chart dumper INSTEAD of being able to to rebut a single premise I put forward in my last, OR the many cited by the OP links.

It's no wonder he has Ducked on this Killer thread (and refutal of his whole existence) until now! Happened about a year+ ago too. He ran away/ignored.
``

It is coming, the NULL hypothesis post was the beginning expose on how ignorant and stupid YOU are, a person who AGAIN just made that clear when he ignores the NULL hypothesis situation in science research, that I pointed out.

You also have no idea what COHERENCE is either as your first post makes clear, which is a polyglot of claims that don't even match up with each other well. Some of the links don't even provide evidence to support their crap.

Oh its coming little boy......

 

[abu afak]

...
It is coming, the NULL hypothesis post was the beginning expose on how ignorant and stupid YOU are, a person who AGAIN just made that clear when he ignores the NULL hypothesis situation in science research, that I pointed out.

You also have no idea what COHERENCE is either as your first post makes clear, which is a polyglot of claims that don't even match up with each other well. Some of the links don't even provide evidence to support their crap.
Oh its coming little boy......

So to be clear, you have NO answer to anything in this thread.
Just suggesting one rational claim is a fallacy. (without showing how it is)
and additionally Ignoring Many Credible sources such as the OP. (Yale, Columbia, NASA, etc, etc).

I Busted you so bad/your whole denial premise, you had me on Ignore for TWO YEARS, lest your whole reason for living fall apart.

Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me, and back to High School/Ignore for you.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I haven't seen Crick or Old Rocks lately, I can only assume that they chained themselves to the Chinese embassy to protest the massive amount of CO2 the Chinese are spewing into the atmosphere

 

[SSDD]

There is plenty of Evidence why this warming is different/human caused.

So lets see it...

One of the main ones is Solar radiation received vs Temp.

Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...

Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Scientists have measured that solar forcing/output that caused all the other ones, and noted that unlike the others, earth has not received more radiant heat from it.
It's just that we have an ever thickening (and measured ppm) CO2/CH4 Blanket.

Please produce the empirical study.. I cant seem to find anything but failed modeling...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me,

LOL

They dont accept people with negative numbers...

 

[abu afak]

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...

Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

And you're Wrong on that too
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."
​

..
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.

Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.
`

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...

Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

And you're Wrong on that too
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."
​

..
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.

Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.
`

How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...

 

[abu afak]

How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...

It didn't stop you contrary clown.
That's just when the study was done.
WTF!

Trapping at GHG Frequencies wouldn't "stop."
Unbelievable.
What vacuous contrariness.
`

 

[SSDD]

How come it stopped at 2007, dont they have empirical data that goes up to 2018? Since 2019 isnt done yet. Why stop 12 years ago? If I am not mistaken that is around the time that Global Warming started morphing into Climate Change...

It didn't stop you contrary clown.
That's just when the study was done.
WTF!

Trapping at GHG Frequencies wouldn't "stop."
Unbelievable.
What vacuous contrariness.
`

And that is the most current study you can find??? Look at the latest sceince..the pause is coming up on 20 years old now..

 

[abu afak]

And that is the most current study you can find??? Look at the latest sceince..the pause is coming up on 20 years old now..

Radiative blocking at specific GH Gas wave lengths wouldn't stop in any given year you IDIOT.
It's Physics, not a Cold front you ******* IDIOT!

It could get colder in any given year or even decade. (solar driven)
But it would have been colder yet without our GH Gas Blanket.

So Stupid!
But keep posting.
`

 

[SSDD]

What...greenhouse gasses only block radiation in certain years? the fact is that the graphs show that after 20 years, there is no difference in the outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 emission bands...because CO2 can't block radiation...the graphs are proof that CO2 is not blocking outgoing LW radiation...

 

[Billy_Bob]

We know that the total solar output doesn't change by much..and hasn't changed much over the past few decades...we also know that the amount of energy that the sun puts out in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, year to year, decade to decade...can you tell me how changes in any of these particular wavelengths might affect the climate? Of course you can't..because we don't know...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what actually effects the climate...and the very idea that we have it nailed down and can say what causes what is patently ridiculous...

Now I believe that you believe that constitutes evidence..but all it does is shows that you wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on the ass.. EPIC FAIL rolling thunder...EPIC FAIL...

And you're Wrong on that too
EPIC Hyper-posting piece of Crap.
Can be found Hundreds places.
Have one!

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35

"....What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.".."
​

..
You're so mouthy, so high frequency, and so emptily Contrary/STUPID.
You're a Freak.
We have Google now.
It's so easy not to make an ass of Yourself.

Billy Bob is even STUPIDER.
Has No content, just juvenile hostility.
`

Lets skewer the lying piece of Skeptical Shit Science.. ( a site that is known for fabrications, false information, and rewriting or deletion of science presented which refutes their absurd claims).

This is too easy...

Griss and Chen use a "modified" data set... IE: ADJUSTED... Now why would they do this? It is really rather simple, the unaltered data did not find what they wanted to find and they adjusted it so it did. Worse still are the error bars of the work.. +/- 7w/m^2

Even a lowly statistician found the error.....

"The average error at the surface is seven watts per square metre, and despite that, they want you to believe that they can calculate the energy balance, which includes dozens of other energy flows, to the nearest half a watt per square metre?"

This is just to damn funny...

Global Energy Balances … Except When It Doesn’t

 

[abu afak]

Now it's back to the Mensa boards for me,

LOL
They dont accept people with negative numbers...

Actually, I'm in the top half of Mensans, and a much better debater in most areas: politics, economics, etc.

`